Mitt Romney has picked as his running mate 42 year-old Republican Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI), the architect of the GOP budget, which the New York Times has described as “the most extreme ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/opinion/the-careless-house-budget.html?_r=2 ) budget plan passed by a house of Congress in modern times.” Below are 12 things you should know about Ryan and his policies:

Embraces extreme individualism. Ryan heaped praise on Ayn Rand, a 20th-century libertarian novelist best known for her philosophy that centered on the idea that selfishness is “virtue.” Rand described altruism as “evil,” condemned Christianity for advocating compassion for the poor, viewed the feminist movement as “phony,” and called Arabs “almost totally primitive savages. Though he publicly rejected “her philosophy” in 2012, Ryan had professed himself a strong devotee. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” he said at a D.C. gathering honoring the author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.” “I give out ‘Atlas Shrugged’ as Christmas presents, and I make all my interns read it. Well… I try to make my interns read it.” Learn more about Ryan’s muse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s7zwO88nRH8

Raises taxes on the middle class, cuts them for millionaires. Paul Ryan’s infamous budget — which Romney embraced — replaces “the current tax structure with two brackets — 25 percent and 10 percent — and cut the top rate from 35 percent.” Federal tax collections would fall “by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade” as a result and to avoid increasing the national debt, the budget proposes massive cuts in social programs and “special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code.” But 62 percent of the savings would come from programs that benefit the lower- and middle-classes, who would also experience a tax increase. That’s because while Ryan “would extend the Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire at the end of this year, he would not extend President Obama’s tax cuts for those with the lowest incomes, which will expire at the same time.” Households “earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.”

Dramatically increases Medicare costs for seniors, increases eligibility age. Ryan’s latest budget transforms the existing version of Medicare, in which government provides seniors with a guaranteed benefit, into a “premium support” system. All future retirees would receive a government contribution to purchase insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. But since the premium support voucher does not keep up with increasing health care costs, the Congressional Budget Offices estimates that new beneficiaries could pay up to $1,200 more by 2030 and more than $5,900 more by 2050. A recent study also found that had the plan been implemented in 2009, 24 million beneficiares enrolled in the program would have paid higher premiums to maintain their choice of plan and doctors. Ryan would also raise Medicare’s age of eligibility to 67.

Leaves Social Security to the whims of Wall Street. In September of 2011, Ryan agreed with Rick Perry’s characterization of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” and since 2005 has advocated for privatizing the retirement benefit and investing it in stocks and bonds. Conservatives claim that this would “outperform the current formula based on wages earned and overall wage appreciation,” but the economic crisis of 2008 should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers who seek to hinge Americans’ retirement on the stock market. In fact, “a person with a private Social Security account similar to what President George W. Bush proposed in 2005″ would have lost much of their retirement savings.

Budget would result in 4.1 million lost jobs in 2 years. Ryan’s budget calls for massive reductions in government spending. He has proposed cutting discretionary programs by about $120 billion over the next two years and mandatory programs by $284 billion, which, the Economic Policy Institute estimates, would suck demand out of the economy and “reduce employment by 1.3 million jobs in fiscal 2013 and 2.8 million jobs in fiscal 2014, relative to current budget policies.”

Eliminates Pell Grants for more more than 1 million students. Ryan’s budget claims both that rising financial aid is driving college tuition costs upward, and that Pell Grants, which help cover tuition costs for low-income Americans, don’t go to the “truly needy.” So he cuts the Pell Grant program by $200 billion, which could “ultimately knock more than one million students off” the program over the next 10 years.

Keeps $40 billion in subsidies for Big Oil. In 2011, Ryan joined all House Republicans and 13 Democrats in his vote to keep Big Oil tax loopholes as part of the FY 2011 spending bill. His budget would retain a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while cutting “billions of dollars from investments to develop alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that would serve as substitutes for oil.” For instance, it “calls for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone” and would spend only $150 million over five years — or 20 percent of what was invested in 2012 — on energy programs.

Family stands to benefit from oil subsidies. Ryan “and his wife, Janna, own stakes in four family companies that lease land in Texas and Oklahoma to the very energy companies that benefit from the tax subsidies in Ryan’s budget plan,” the Daily Beast reported in June of 2011. “Ryan’s father-in-law, Daniel Little, who runs the companies, told Newsweek and The Daily Beast that the family companies are currently leasing the land for mining and drilling to energy giants such as Chesapeake Energy, Devon, and XTO Energy, a recently acquired subsidiary of ExxonMobil.”

Claimed Romneycare has led to “rationing and benefit cuts.” “I’m not a fan of [Romney's health care reform] system,” Ryan told C-SPAN in 2010. He argued that government is rationing care in the state and claimed that people are “seeing the system bursting by the seams, they’re seeing premium increases, rationing and benefit cuts.” He called the system “a fatal conceit” and “unsustainable.” Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EnYlx3Rh-Lg

Believes that Romneycare is “not that dissimilar to Obamacare.” Though Romney has gone to great lengths to distinguish his Massachusetts health care law from Obamacare, Romney doesn’t see the difference. “It’s not that dissimilar to Obamacare, and you probably know I’m not a big fan of Obamacare,” Ryan said at a breakfast meeting sponsored by the American Spectator in March of 2011. “I just don’t think the mandates work … all the regulation they’ve put on it…I think it’s beginning to death spiral. They’re beginning to have to look at rationing decisions.”

Accused generals of lying about their support for Obama’s military budget. In March, Ryan couldn’t believe that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey supports Obama’s Pentagon budget, which incorporates $487 billion in cuts over 10 years. “We don’t think the generals are giving us their true advice,” Ryan said at a policy summit hosted by the National Journal. “We don’t think the generals believe that their budget is really the right budget.” He later apologized for the implication. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AE4I1rSPrrY

Co-sponsored a personhood amendment. Ryan joined 62 other Republicans in co-sponsoring the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which declares that a fertilized egg “shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.” This would outlaw abortion, some forms of contraception and invitro fertilization.

217 Comments

I think Ryan has a class form of the Napoleonic complex. He knows not labor nor has he ever had to physically defend himself. He lives a sheltered life. As someone who grew up with a handful of well off friends, I can tell you for a fact that this can cause one to question if they are even capable of these tasks. Not knowing may cause some insecurities so I can see where meanness could become a replacement for these verification of masculinity. Ryan is mean because it makes him feel like a man, since he bypassed all the other challenges in life that normally do this.

Bombs, jets and rockets were not the only weapons we grabbed from the Nazis in "Operation Paperclip," we also got Propaganda techniques! 24/7/365/ every city RW Hate Speech Radio, an entire Network devoted to RW Propaganda, the WSJ, controlling ownership of MSM, and Citizens United untold secret funds. They're conducting "Shock Doctrine" right before our "Idiocracy" eyes! Do you really wonder "When are we going to learn?"

When all we have to do is use the weapons our forefathers left us, for this very problem of the tyranny of Kings, to save us. I ask: When are we going to Vote!!

The "Right" has had huge problems with this ridiculous notion of People rule, democracy, since before the revolution. Their authoritarian yearnings always seek totalitarianism in any form they can get it. Plutocracy is today's RW monarchy fix.

When we get discouraged by their constant sabotage and don't Vote, they infiltrate our government to jam what works for us, and grease what works for their plutocratic 1% lords.

Eternal Vigilance! We the People have a self-defeating habit of celebrating and forgetting after victories ('06-'08). The KingCons have (heartless, mindless, masochistic) Zombie hordes who never stop attacking, destroying and killing.

Instant Runoff Elections are the stake through the KingCon heart, which is why they will do/spend/??? ANYTHING to keep them from being actualized. Meanwhile:

When they have two or three parties to suppress the Votes of, it's next to impossible. Cons are monsters, they aren't merely defeated and dead. You have to chop them up in pieces, set the pieces in cement, and shoot each piece to different planets!!

Sure it reduced the top bracket to 25% however it eliminates the loopholes that allow many 1 percenters to pay zero taxes.

As for subsidies budget gives reconciliation instructions to Agriculture, Energy, and Commerce to produce at least $18 billion of reduction in the first year, $116 billion over the first five years, and $261 billion over the first ten years. The larges cuts are in subsidies to energy.

As Washington considers ways to rein in the deficit, Republicans have obstinately demanded that any tax revenue increases be taken off the table, claiming that raising taxes during a down economy would doom the recovery. As evidence, they often point to the presidency of Ronald Reagan, claiming his massive 1981 tax cuts caused that decade’s economic boom. But this anti-tax position makes it almost impossible to do anything serious about the deficit, since — despite GOP talking points — the country has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. On ABC’s This Week today, Reagan’s own budget director, David Stockman, exposed the GOP tax cut “theology” for the ahistorical sham it is. Asked by Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland if the economy could “sustain” a tax increase, Stockman (Mr. Raygun-omics) said “absolutely,” noting that the economy only recovered under Reagan once he raised taxes in 1982 after “cut[ting] taxes too much” the year before:

FREELAND: You worked for Ronald Reagan. Do you think the American economy — so you’re, like, a red-blooded capitalist — could it sustain higher taxes than it has now?

STOCKMAN: Absolutely. In 1982, we were looking at the jaws of the worst recession since the 1930s. We overdid it in 1981, cut taxes too much. We came back with a big deficit reduction plan in 1982. Unemployment’s at 10 percent, the economy is in dire shape, and we raise taxes by 1.2 percent of GDP, which would be $150 billion a year right now — not 10 years down the road — but right now.

Stockman also attacked Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan, noting it “does not cut one dime from the debt” in the next three years. Indeed, in addition to being draconian and regressive, Ryan’s budget fails to accomplish the only thing it sets out to do — solve the deficit — despite claims from Washington journalists that his plan is “serious.”

Example. The article you pointed to claims that Paul's plan cuts Medicaid by 43%. THAT IS A LIE.

The plan does not cut Medicaid at all but rather calls for slowing the rate of growth in spending by $8 Bn per year by controlling costs. The cost savings are achieved by moving administration to the states and decisions to the people. Even if you consider slowing growth a cut, it is only 2%.

So they start with a lie and continue to mislead throughout the opinion. If you read the plan you can eliminate the opinion.

There are simple decisions that can be made to reign in costs however the hospitals (Part A), doctors, (Part B) and drug companies (Part C) continuously lobby against them.

Example 1: A prescription of Ultram costs $80 and the generic version costs $8. Medicaid patients are pushed to the name brand while private companies steer patients towards the generics. Some name brand prescription drugs costs as much as 100% more than the generics cost per bottle.

Example 2. Medicare requires that certain procedures that can be performed in a doctors office be preformed in a hospital instead. This increases the cost by 200% and adds no value. The hospitals lobbied for this provision and will continue to do so. Not to make the program better but rather to maintain their revenue stream

In my OPINION we need to cut spending and raise revenue to balance the budget. I do not think we should pass the debt on to our children and grandchildren. Most seniors feel the same way. They are not as selfish as the Democrats presume they are. Granny does not believe she is being thrown over the cliff in her wheelchair. She is willing to do what she needs to ensure her grandchildren so not owe tens of trillions of dollars. She knows that when she had credit card debt she had to cut spending and pay off the debt to bring that balance down. Taking 100% of the income from the 1% will not cover the debt. We need to change the way we spend.

You Righties are really something, covering your eyes and declaring to all, "You can't see me!!" And who do you think will be stuck with the bill for the still accruing carnage of your GOP Bush-Cheney debacle?? Our children and their children!! A Mitt-Twit/Lie'n-Ryan administration would Re-Open the Casino Economy for Biz, on steroids!

The RepubliCon objective for Medicaid, Social Security and any other Public Service is to Privatize it, so they can Monetize it, to provide evermore wealth to their 1% GODS!!! You point to lies in the articles that debunk the fraud that is the Ryan Plan, but the entirety of Twit & Lie'n and the RepubliCon Cult is nothing but LIES and FRAUD!!

I can also see that, as usual, you are again against people having a choice. If people were given an option to choose of course they may chose a private over a government option. That company may make a profit. However if it costs less than the government option and provides the same or better service who cares.

The truth is that currently about $0.53 of every dollar spent on Medicare gets to the people that need it. Having a medical exchange where there is a competitive bidding process would certainly send costs in a better direction.

Low income seniors shopping for coverage would be offered the same range of high quality options offered to all other seniors. They would be guaranteed the ability to choose a traditional fee for service Medicare plan, or they could choose a private plan on the Medicare Exchange with a fully funded account from which to pay premiums, co-pays and other out of pocket costs.

The high income means testing thresholds for the Parts B and D programs would apply to the new Medicare program, such that certain high income seniors would pay an increased share of their premiums.

The President has repeatedly proposed empowering IPAB to hold Medicare growth to the same growth rate. The difference is that the Ryan budget proposes to use competition to control costs, while IPAB under the Presidentfs proposals would use bureaucratic benefit restrictions to contain Medicarefs growth to below GDP plus 0.5 percent.59

The Ryan budget repeals IPAB, the unaccountable panel of 15 unelected bureaucrats empowered by the President’s health care law to cut Medicare in ways that would lead to denied care for seniors. Choice and competition – not bureaucratic rationing – is the best way to contain costs in government health care programs while at the same time improving the quality of care.

Mitt the Twit, Lie'n Ryan and the RepubliCon Cult's only GOAL for Medicare (and all other Public Services) is PRIORITIZATION!!!

Their goal ~ no matter what convoluted bull shit they pretend to give a fuck about ~ is to transform Medicare and all Non-Profit Public Services to For-Profit Enterprises, so they can re-direct the funds to the 1% Kings they work for. Their singular goal is to Monetize and Extract, just like Twit did with Bain!!

I agree with Ryan that we need to eliminate deductions that help the rich pay little if any taxes. Get rid of the mortgage deduction, charitable deductions, claiming your estate is a farm because you sell cut flowers once a year deduction, alpaca deduction, and hundreds of others.

He was running from this immoral budget as fast as could today. Just you are when you say "Ryan's running for vp" LOL!!

Well Romney said he that it was "marvelous" and would sign it if he were Pres. so that is enough to beat them over the head with it for the next 85 days. They can run but they can't hide. Reverse robin hoodlum lowlifes.

It's a bad budget. Romney's busget is just as bad. Medicare is fine for 15 years, SS even longer (according to the right wing wackos anyway) I think it will last even longer. AND if we implement the Pres recovery plan that WILL strengthen these valuable well loved programs for decades more.

Repubs want us to believe these programs are in financial trouble but they aren't. Those are right wing lies.

Sorry you've been duped, or you're tryin to dupe me. but I'm too smart for that.

The economy will improve as soon as republicans stop obstructing the democratic plan for recovery. I'm sure the economy will recover because thats what economies do. They go into recession (conservative policy, then they recover, (progressive policy.

Once the natural process is allowed to occur SS will strengthen, Otherwise we just raise payroll contributions (on the wealthy), & means test distribution, and SS will be fine.

Greece & Spain did not try progressive stimulus!. They implemented conservative austerity. Are you joking? That is why they haven't gotten out of the last recession (2007/8 republican great recession) and why they are in a 2nd recession.

We have a recovery (slow and shallow) because we did they right thing and implemented progressive stimulus. Our recovery would have been much stringer and deeper if your republican hadn't watered down the stimulus/jobs creation/tax reform democrats proposed.

They have been progressive for many years and austerity is being forced on them if they want more money from the rest of the EU to pay for their bloated programs. They could have chosen not to take the money and done as they please.

They may have been progressive for decades, and that may have contributed to their recession, but the recession was cause by conservative banksters reckless business practices. Period.

The progressive countries screwed by these conservative banksters irresponsible behavior would have done fine if they were allowed to use progressive stimulus strategies. Instead of the conservative austerity that made the problem worse.

If they try more austerity they will sink lower into recession. As will we ifwe try to cut the economy when we need to stimulate the economy.

PAUL D. RYAN is the most articulate and intellectually imposing Republican of the moment, but that doesn’t alter the fact that this earnest congressman from Wisconsin is preaching the same empty conservative sermon.

Thirty years of Republican apostasy — a once grand party’s embrace of the welfare state, the warfare state and the Wall Street-coddling bailout state — have crippled the engines of capitalism and buried us in debt. Mr. Ryan’s sonorous campaign rhetoric about shrinking Big Government and giving tax cuts to “job creators” (read: the top 2 percent) will do nothing to reverse the nation’s economic decline and arrest its fiscal collapse.

Mr. Ryan professes to be a defense hawk, though the true conservatives of modern times — Calvin Coolidge, Herbert C. Hoover, Robert A. Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, even Gerald R. Ford — would have had no use for the neoconconservative imperialism that the G.O.P. cobbled from policy salons run by Irving Kristol’s ex-Trotskyites three decades ago. These doctrines now saddle our bankrupt nation with a roughly $775 billion “defense” budget in a world where we have no advanced industrial state enemies and have been fired (appropriately) as the global policeman.

Indeed, adjusted for inflation, today’s national security budget is nearly double Eisenhower’s when he left office in 1961 (about $400 billion in today’s dollars) — a level Ike deemed sufficient to contain the very real Soviet nuclear threat in the era just after Sputnik. By contrast, the Romney-Ryan version of shrinking Big Government is to increase our already outlandish warfare-state budget and risk even more spending by saber-rattling at a benighted but irrelevant Iran.

Similarly, there can be no hope of a return to vibrant capitalism unless there is a sweeping housecleaning at the Federal Reserve and a thorough renunciation of its interest-rate fixing, bond buying and recurring bailouts of Wall Street speculators. The Greenspan-Bernanke campaigns to repress interest rates have crushed savers, mocked thrift and fueled enormous overconsumption and trade deficits.

The greatest regulatory problem — far more urgent that the environmental marginalia Mitt Romney has fumed about — is that the giant Wall Street banks remain dangerous quasi-wards of the state and are inexorably prone to speculative abuse of taxpayer-insured deposits and the Fed’s cheap money. Forget about “too big to fail.” These banks are too big to exist — too big to manage internally and to regulate externally. They need to be broken up by regulatory decree. Instead, the Romney-Ryan ticket attacks the pointless Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul, when what’s needed is a restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era legislation that separated commercial and investment banking.

Mr. Ryan showed his conservative mettle in 2008 when he folded like a lawn chair on the auto bailout and the Wall Street bailout. But the greater hypocrisy is his phony “plan” to solve the entitlements mess by deferring changes to social insurance by at least a decade.

A true agenda to reform the welfare state would require a sweeping, income-based eligibility test, which would reduce or eliminate social insurance benefits for millions of affluent retirees. Without it, there is no math that can avoid giant tax increases or vast new borrowing. Yet the supposedly courageous Ryan plan would not cut one dime over the next decade from the $1.3 trillion-per-year cost of Social Security and Medicare.

Instead, it shreds the measly means-tested safety net for the vulnerable: the roughly $100 billion per year for food stamps and cash assistance for needy families and the $300 billion budget for Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor and disabled. Shifting more Medicaid costs to the states will be mere make-believe if federal financing is drastically cut.

Likewise, hacking away at the roughly $400 billion domestic discretionary budget (what’s left of the federal budget after defense, Social Security, health and safety-net spending and interest on the national debt) will yield only a rounding error’s worth of savings after popular programs (which Republicans heartily favor) like cancer research, national parks, veterans’ benefits, farm aid, highway subsidies, education grants and small-business loans are accommodated.

Like his new boss, Mr. Ryan has no serious plan to create jobs. America has some of the highest labor costs in the world, and saddles workers and businesses with $1 trillion per year in job-destroying payroll taxes. We need a national sales tax — a consumption tax, like the dreaded but efficient value-added tax — but Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan don’t have the gumption to support it.

The Ryan Plan boils down to a fetish for cutting the top marginal income-tax rate for “job creators” — i.e. the superwealthy — to 25 percent and paying for it with an as-yet-undisclosed plan to broaden the tax base. Of the $1 trillion in so-called tax expenditures that the plan would attack, the vast majority would come from slashing popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, 401(k) accounts, state and local taxes, charitable giving and the like, not to mention low rates on capital gains and dividends. The crony capitalists of K Street already own more than enough Republican votes to stop that train before it leaves the station.

In short, Mr. Ryan’s plan is devoid of credible math or hard policy choices. And it couldn’t pass even if Republicans were to take the presidency and both houses of Congress. Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan have no plan to take on Wall Street, the Fed, the military-industrial complex, social insurance or the nation’s fiscal calamity and no plan to revive capitalist prosperity — just empty sermons.

David A. Stockman, who was the director of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981 to 1985, is the author of the forthcoming book “The Great Deformation: How Crony Capitalism Corrupts Free Markets and Democracy.”

Paul Ryan's Extremist Medicare Plan-Dangerous Or A Political Lie Manufactured by Democrats?

Ready or not, a television commercial depicting Granny being pushed out of her wheelchair and over a cliff by someone resembling the newly minted GOP Vice-Presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, will soon be coming to a TV near you.

While Nana and Gramps are likely in no immediate danger of meeting their end at the hands of the Republican plan to modify Medicare, Congressman Ryan —as the architect-in-chief of the GOP’s controversial approach to the utilization of “premium supports” as a replacement for Medicare—is about to encounter a buzz saw of criticism over his controversial proposals.

The question is, will the criticism be justified or just one more attempt to paint a candidate with a highly partisan brush?

Let’s see if we can figure it out by first understanding the concept that sits at the center of the Ryan plan – premium supports.

Premium supports replace the current system of having government pay health care providers for the services, procedures, hospitalizations, etc. administered to Medicare beneficiaries with direct, cash payments to those same seniors (and other Medicare beneficiaries) who would then use the money to buy their coverage from private health insurance companies. If properly utilized, the premium support payments should provide the identical quality of care as is available through the Medicare program.

The theory supporting the use of premium supports suggests that, by moving coverage for the 65+ crowd to the private markets, the competition that would result would not only result in substantially lower costs to government— as there would be established “caps” on what seniors would be given to spend versus the current system where healthcare costs are largely determined by the providers and Medicare is left to pay the constantly rising bills—but would also provide better coverage for our seniors who would benefit from insurance companies creating better products in the effort to acquire the elderly’s business.

Additionally, with there being a more finite amount of money available to seniors to pay for their care, the trajectory of medical costs could be held down as the elderly wouldn’t have much extra money to pay for more than what they can purchase with their subsidies.

Sounds like a typical, GOP created plan, yes?

You might be surprised.

Just as the idea of an insurance mandate was, ironically, originated at the conservative Heritage Foundation—only to see the concept’s creators turn against the idea along with Republicans en masse once President Obama agreed to include mandated coverage in the Affordable Care Act—the notion of utilizing premium supports was the brainchild of a couple of Democrats based at Brookings and the Urban Institute.

Predictably, these originators, along with their fellow Democrats, have now turned sharply against the concept as Congressman Ryan has proposed it.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Next Page »

What is most interesting is that Obama is running against Ryan now instead of Romney. A sitting president is running his campaign against a vice presidential nominee.

In my OPINION we need to cut spending and raise revenue to balance the budget and reduce the debt. I do not think we should pass the debt on to our children and grandchildren. Most seniors feel the same way. They are not as selfish as the Democrats presume they are. Granny does not believe she is being thrown over the cliff in her wheelchair. She is willing to do what she needs to ensure her grandchildren so not owe tens of trillions of dollars. She knows that when she had credit card debt she had to cut spending and pay off the debt to bring that balance down. Taking 100% of the income from the 1% will not cover the debt. We need to change the way we spend.

Let's not forget the direction of the populous. In the Wisconsin recall Walker election more people voted than in the general election and he won by a larger margin. The public gets that we need to slow down on spending and reduce the size and scope of government.

Clinton lowered capital gains and raised the cap on Social Security contributions. It makes sense to have a program pay for itself. It would be nice however if we were not forced to participate.

"We have worked hard here to put our fiscal house in order. The government is the smallest it's been in 35 years. And deficit reduction has given us lower interest rates, higher investment, and, I might add, lower unemployment, more taxpayers, and more funds to invest in America's future."

You don't "have" to, you can immigrate to another country if you are unhappy with America, I have often not wanted to participate in things the country does, the Iraq War, the War on Drugs, trans-vaginal ultrasounds but still I stay and try to influence things in a better way. If Obama did not have to deal with Republicans I think he could get more done, if the Republicans had not decided in 2001 that Washington was taking in too much money and cut taxes, Obama could do better I think according to Alan Greenspan the debt would be fully paid by now if we had not cut taxes in 2001.

I never said I was unhappy with America. It is the best country I know. In fact it is really the only country I know since I was born and raised. I just want to make it better.

I love this country and want a president and congress that will manage and balance a budget. Just because I am not in favor of big government solutions, spending more, and borrowing even more does not mean I do not love the United States.

I already pay my fair share. More than my fair share in my opinion. I pay more than 50% of my earnings in taxes and fees.

Raising the tax rate will not solve the problem on it's own. If you tax the rich at 100% you would not cover the deficit. 70% of the budget is Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and interest in the debt, you have to address the big three. I hope you stick with us on that.

we have over 15 trillion in debt, unfortunately we as a nation have not been paying our fair share, we must make adjustments, I am sure many will feel it is more than it should be, perhaps in the future these things will be considered before the money is spent, even if it's for the troops

we have 60 trillion in assets and 15 trillion in debt, it is a matter of will, not money

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. We got 15 trillion into debt by Republicans and Democrats spending more than we were/are taking in.

We spend more on the military than the next 15 countries COMBINED. The rate of growth in Medicare spending has outpaced inflation by more than 300%. People used to take care of their parents. Now they want to leave them in a government run nursing home.

We have turned Social Security, a temporary safety net program, into a retirement on the golf course program.

So we are in agreement then, purge the Republicans from congress and reduce military spending NOW!!!

It just seemed you were beating around the bush joe, just to spell it out then we do agree on getting rid of Republicans so that military spending can be lowered I just didn't see you put it that way but I will for the both of us if you like.

We have lowered the top rate from 90% to 15% for the very wealthy, it seems that is a large part of how we got here. No matter, though over and over we were told that either we needed to cut taxes, or we could not raise taxes for "the economy" and in all this time the GDP growth has stagnated at the top, we invested in the economy, it grew now it is time for those who received the growth to pay the bill.

The thing about dividends is that they are based on after tax profit. If I own a business I pay taxes on the profit I make, as much as 50% for a personal service corp. From what is left after that I can pay to myself as a dividend. Now you are telling me I should be taxed again at a 90% tax on that money?

All so the government can waste it. All so that politicians can give it to their friends and relatives and stimulus, subsidies, grants, and contracts. No thank you!

sorry joe, I didn't know you knew nothing of what corporations are, it almost sounds like cloning when you talk about it. How the same person is paying taxes twice, how does that fit in to the whole corporations are people? Aren't they the ones paying the tax and aren't you trying to take credit for tax some else ie the corporation is paying? and how is that different than me taking credit for taxes my employer pays on my wages before he gets the money to pay me, don't those wages come from profits and when are those taxes paid?

and wages are based on "after hours worked" if you can decut one then why not the other? then where are we? best to forget that crap and understand when you get the money you get the money no matter where it's been or what's it's done, or what it's paid, getting money is getting money and if we decide we are going to tax it then it should all be taxed.

You work and collect money from your customers.
You pay tax on any salary you pay yourself.
If there is anything left over you pay a corporate tax of up to 50%.
Anything left over after being taxed at the corporate rate can be paid as a dividend which you want to tax a second time at 90%

I agree with the concept of taxing income once but taxing it twice seems a little excessive.

I see your point joe all this lower rates for corporations and stuff is a scam when really these things are owned by people and should pay the same tax rate as every one else does, all this stuff about giving coporations and business special tax rates is crap those things are owned by people and should pay the same rate any worker making that much does, another good point joe.

Here i was referring to the tax rates that really matter to the people with big money the capital gains and dividend tax rates where all the real, "buying government" kind of money comes from, we know it's a fact that Romney paid less than 14% on 20 million in income that he didn't earn, The "top" tax rate is the one you pay on the gains, don't you know that?

I do not like or dislike "groups" of people. You have a propensity to put people in groups, conservatives, liberals, women, men, Americans, rich, poor, black, white...

I do not have a group mentality. I see everybody as an individual. Seeing everybody as an individual means their liberties are protected as individuals. Republicans and Democrats group people as well. We often hear of "family values" or "gay rights". We need to protect the rights of every individual.

This is where I part from Ryan. I find his social conservatism disturbing. He has voted time and time against the individual freedom because of sexual orientation all in the name of family values.

I find it amazing that you say something and then act as if I said it and am trying to "weasel out of it"

I don't hate anyone and never said I do. I never said I can't stand anyone either. I never said I hate rich people. I never said I hate, dislike, or "can't stand" any individual or a group.

What is interesting is you entirely miss the point. It has to do with respecting individuals. If you treat everyone as an individual and treat every individual fairly, honestly, and with dignity there is no need for group rights. If you let everyone get married, visit their partner in the hospital, etc. there is no need for laws like "Don't ask Don't Tell" or the "Defense of Marriage Act". Both are a ridiculous waste of time and tax payer money.

Citizen United Koch Bros untold money bribing influence has nothing whatsoever to do with the People, except it victimizes them.

There is no comparison, the Right and RepubliCons spend, steal and "lose" more money, taxes and treasuries in one or two presidencies than all others combined!! Our children's children will be strapped with the RepubliCon Cult's GRAFT and REDISTRIBUTION to their 1% Charlie Mansons!!

Don't you Flat-Earthers ever get embarrassed spewing that crap??

People, these RW jokers never quit!! We have to get REGISTERED and get out the VOTE!!

Paul Ryan's Extremist Medicare Plan-Dangerous Or A Political Lie Manufactured by Democrats?

Page 2 of 5

So, is replacing Medicare—or offering premium support as an alternate choice to Medicare— in the best interests of America’s seniors (along with disabled Americans who are dependent on our national payer system for their health care) or will premium support send us back to a time when seniors faced a choice of paying for health care or food?

Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether or not private insurers will ever be as dependable as the government when it comes to delivering on the promise of access to adequate health care for all of our seniors, the devil lies in the details of a premium support program —particularly with respect to the question of how much money the government would hand over to the elderly to pay for their health care needs.

It is in answering this question that one can decide whether Paul Ryan has truly offered up a workable plan or simply put forth another deep cut to an important social program in his quest to make government smaller—even if it badly hurts those who depend upon it the most.

To reach a conclusion, we not only need to understand the Ryan plan but must also recognize that Paul Ryan’s position has changed a great deal from the time he offered his original proposals to where he finds himself today. It’s also of value to understand why his position has constantly moved away from his initial proposals.

In the first Ryan budget, as originally introduced in his 2008 “Roadmap For America’s Future” ,the Congressman’s proposals for the future of Medicare revolved around two primary concepts, each applying to those who are under the age of 55 so that current recipients and those approaching the age of Medicare would not be affected.

The first was the introduction of a premium support plan that limited annual increases in the money given seniors to buy their insurance based on the rate of inflation, while the second was the proposal that Medicare be ended in its entirety.

While the idea of tying annual increases to inflation might sound reasonable on first blush, keep in mind that the cost of health insurance tends to rise at an average, annual rate of about 7 to 9 percent—far more than the increase in prices due to inflation. Thus, allowing premium supports to only go up in conjunction with inflation would never be enough to keep seniors ‘even’ on a year-to-year basis.

It was for this reason that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined that the impact of the original Ryan plan would be severe—leaving many elderly with insufficient funds to buy healthcare insurance in the private markets.

What was particularly interesting about Ryan’s first effort was that it moved so far away from the plan the Congressman had been working on with Alice Rivlin, the one–time OMB Director in the Clinton Administration.

In the Ryan-Rivlin plan, the level of premium support payments had been pegged to the annual growth of GDP plus 1%. While this approach still raised questions as to whether or not it was enough to keep seniors from being placed in an untenable position, it was a far more reasonable approach to delivering on the premium support concept than what Ryan eventually would include in his budget—allowing premium supports to rise with inflation.

So, why did Ryan grow so stingy when he finally offered up his plan?
Page 1 2 3 4 5

Paul Ryan's Extremist Medicare Plan-Dangerous Or A Political Lie Manufactured by Democrats?

Page 3 of 5

The overarching goal of the Ryan budget is to get to a balanced budget by 2030-2040 by bringing the size of government down to something nearing 20 percent of GDP. To provide some context, President Reagan operated government at 22 percent of GDP while President Obama is shooting for something in the area of 24 to 25 percent. Ryan seeks to do this by clamping down on government spending while not only avoiding any rise in taxes, but actually cutting taxes for those in the upper-income brackets. Were the Congressman to include a premium support program that allowed annual increases based on GDP growth plus 1 percent, Ryan simply could not make the numbers work—at least, not without breaching GOP doctrine and raising taxes.

Thus, Paul Ryan went with the far smaller annual increases for premium support, changing the proposal from one that was, arguably, a legitimate effort, into a far less desirable voucher plan that would merely contribute to the expense of a senior’s health care bill rather than paying for all, or the lion’s share, of the costs to an individual replacing Medicare with private insurance.

The political fallout of the original Ryan proposal was immense.

When Democrat, Kathy Hochul,— running in a special Congressional election in Western New York on a platform arguing that the GOP was trying to take away our Medicare—won what had long been a safe GOP congressional seat, the Republicans worried that the Ryan Medicare proposal would prove to be a serious handicap in the upcoming midterm elections and beyond.

Ryan responded by convincing Democratic Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon to join him in a brand new proposal.

The Wyden-Ryan Plan

In this new approach, Paul Ryan returned to the old Ryan-Rivlin idea of allowing premium supports to rise based on annual GDP growth plus one percent. He also went along with the idea that Medicare would survive as an option for seniors in addition to the opportunity to move to the private markets utilizing government provided premium support.

While the Wyden-Ryan proposal would have come much closer to a workable solution, what the Congressman did not tell you —and the media, with the exception of Matt Miller at The Washington Post who has done some brilliant writing on this, largely failed to point out—is that moving to the GDP plus one percent formula would have dramatically altered Ryan’s assumptions upon which he based his entire plan to lower government spending while balancing the budget.

Indeed, Mr. Miller, a one-time senior advisor at the White House Office of Management and Budget, has estimated that the Wyden-Ryan plan would have ballooned the deficit from the $14 trillion the Ryan budget envisioned by the time we get to a balanced budge in 2035-2040, to something closer to $50 trillion.

If you are surprised that the Ryan budget proposes a $14 trillion debt —even were his plan of getting us to a balanced budget at some point between 2035 and 2040 to succeed—you shouldn’t be.

Contrary to accepted belief, the GOP choice for Vice-President is not a fiscal conservative – he is an advocate of small government and low taxes. A simple review of his voting record (votes in support of TARP, the auto bailout and the Medicare Part D expansion) make this very clear.

In fact, the Ryan budget proposals would add $6 trillion to the federal deficit over the next 10 years, and, as noted, $14 trillion by 2035-2040. What’s more, the $14 trillion number was arrived at using some less than trustworthy assumptions leading many economist to believe that the number would be far larger. While it can be fairly stated that Ryan’s deficits will likely be lower than what the Obama Administration has proposed, can someone arguing for such high deficits truly be considered a fiscal conservative?
Page 1 2 3 4 5 « Previous Page Next Page »

Paul Ryan's Extremist Medicare Plan-Dangerous Or A Political Lie Manufactured by Democrats?

Page 4 of 5

For additional irony, the Wyden-Ryan plan bore a striking resemblance to Obamacare—the law Congressman Ryan has sworn to repeal at first opportunity—complete with heavily regulated insurance exchanges requiring insurance companies to sell a policy to anyone who wants one, regardless of their health circumstances.

Luckily for Paul Ryan, the Wyden-Ryan plan never gained traction—largely because of anger on the part of Wyden’s fellow Democrats who were not pleased that the Oregon Senator had joined with the ‘enemy’ to take away such a great campaign issue while giving the GOP badly needed political cover by being able to say that a liberal Democrat had joined with Congressman Ryan.

As Wyden-Ryan quickly disappeared from the national dialogue, Congressman Ryan, now Chairman of the House Budget Committee, proposed his latest budgetary plan.

This time, the Congressman stayed away from the notion of only providing annual increases in premium supports based on inflation and retained the increase based on growth in GDP. Only now, it is GDP plus ½ of a percent rather than the full 1 percent. His latest proposal also keeps Medicare as an option for those who prefer the government program to private insurance.
RyanCare 2.0-Still Shifting Health Care Costs Onto The Backs Of Our Elderly Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor

Is Paul Ryan's Medicare A Voucher System Or Not- Who Is Demagoguing Who? Rick Ungar Rick Ungar Contributor

Not only does the latest Ryan plan increase the likelihood that future seniors will find themselves facing health care costs they can’t hope to afford (although Ryan’s ‘splitting the baby’ between his original proposal and the Wyden-Ryan plan puts the elderly is a slightly better position), it also greatly increases the deficit the nation would face in 2040 under the complete Ryan budget. While the deficit number has not yet been projected, it would be something more than the $14 trillion projected in the first Ryan budget proposal and something less than the $50 trillion Miller estimates could have been the result of the adopting the Wyden-Ryan plan.

While you can judge for yourself if all of these machinations produce anything of much value to Americans—future seniors or otherwise—the evolution of the Ryan plan provides some important clues into the Congressman’s motives and thinking process.

For starters, anyone who perceives Congressman Ryan to be a “courageous” legislator, willing to take a tough position to benefit the nation while creating political jeopardy for himself or his party, might wish to reconsider. While the original Ryan proposals for Medicare may have been a defensible position from the point of view of conservative ideology, he has managed to stray far from his original intent as put forth in that initial policy initiative—and he’s done so purely for political purposes.

Indeed, one would be hard pressed to find a knowledgeable source (willing to speak the truth) who would suggest that Ryan made the modifications because he believes that they make his plan better.

It is also worth noting that the caps on what government would spend, as put forth in the latest Ryan approach to Medicare, are far closer to President Obama’s budgetary proposals than one might think. While their numbers end up being fairly close, the distinction in their plans comes from Obama’s effort to restrain the rising costs to the government through limiting payments to Medicare providers while Congressman Ryan seeks to accomplish the goal by limiting how much money is to be made available to seniors utilizing health care services.

While it is up to the reader to decide if premium support is a good way to go, you should do so knowing that—as currently proposed by the GOP nominee to be our next Vice-President—future seniors will face far more pressure when it comes to paying for their healthcare than what they experience under our current system. What’s more, it must be noted that, even with limiting the costs to government that would result from the current Ryan plan, the Congressman’s ideas would still result in a significant increase in our nation’s debt.

There are valid arguments to be made in defense of premium supports as an alternative to our current Medicare structure. If properly conceived, through keeping the needs of seniors at the forefront of the discussion, there may be many benefits to be achieved by taking a serious look at this approach.

However, using premium supports as the primary means of reaching a desired budgetary result, as Paul Ryan has done, and doing so by hiding the true impact on the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, is not what this country is all about.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 « Previous Page Next Page »

Paul Ryan's Extremist Medicare Plan-Dangerous Or A Political Lie Manufactured by Democrats?

Page 5 of 5

If Paul Ryan wants to truly be the ‘courageous’ legislator his PR machine would have us believe him to be, he should come clean on what his proposed premium support plan would do to our elderly. He should also tell the truth about how his ongoing modifications are not only going to produce something far less effective than our current Medicare system when it comes to affordability and access to care for our nation’s seniors, but will do so while greatly increasing the size of our national debt by 2040.

This may not be the sort of messaging that will get the job done for the GOP ticket—but it would be the truth.

Political Animal
Blog
August 20, 2012 9:16 AM Tripling Down on the Welfare Lie

I had naively thought that perhaps after two rounds of heavy advertisements advancing a race-baiting pack of lies about the Obama administration’s welfare policies, the Romney/Ryan campaign would pocket whatever advantage it had derived and move in a different direction before the mendacity of the attacks began to afflict even the consciences of cynical MSM political reports. But no: there’s a new ad, which dares defend its accuracy via (a) a completely empty editorial from the ever-partisan Richmond Times-Dispatch that in turn appears to rest its trust in the accuracy of the ads on (b) the opinion of Daily Caller columnist Mickey Kaus. Yes, it’s Mickey Kaus’ ultimate fantasy: being the indirect author of a multi-million dollar assault on his old enemies among social policy liberals.

If you actually go read the Kaus column that appears to have become via the Richmond papers Mitt Romney’s ex post facto justification for his ads, even Mickey admits that its central charges are “overstated and oversimplified.” His everybody’s-lying semi-defense of the ad is based purely and simply on Kaus’ judgment that the people in charge of welfare policy at HHS are known by Mickey to be enemies of the work requirement, and therefore in announcing an openness to waiver applications must have been moving towards an effort to overturn work requirements entirely. Mickey’s big aha moment—a line way, way down in the weeds of an HHS memo suggesting a possible pilot project allowing certain training programs to be counted temporarily as “work”—doesn’t provide much justification for an ad that explicitly says Obama has abolished any work or training requirement, and makes the new policy: “they just mail you your welfare check.” This is a blatant lie even if you buy Mickey Kaus’ omniscient old-ax-grinding knowledge of the inner evil intent of HHS bureaucrats.

Anyone authentically worried about the future of work-based welfare reform ought to be a bit more concerned about the Romney/Ryan ticket’s open and undisputed intent to deeply undermine all the “make work pay” supports that are essential to the success of reform, especially in a weak economy: the earned income tax credit, food stamps, Medicaid (and for many of the working poor, the Medicaid expansion provided for by the Affordable Care Act), and job training resources.

Ah, but why am I even wasting time arguing about this? The malignant heart of the Romney/Ryan campaign’s attack line isn’t any fact or piece of data, but simply the ad hominem assertion that of course Barack Obama wants to take your money and give it to those people without condition, because he’s one of them and that’s who he represents. And they’ll keep running these ads to the bitter end, particularly so long as they can count on a hackish editorial board and a “rogue” score-settling blogger to provide them a tiny shred of cover.

Whether you vote Republican or Democrat, the oligarchs will win, so of course Bombney or Obomber - it makes little difference and you are right. However, Paul 'Ayn Rand Loving' Ryan is one scary, nightmarish prospect viewed from abroad and his so called 'budget plan' makes very little impression on the Gargantuan Expenditure of US Global Empire !!

Does evryone remember 'The End of The Cold War' almost a generation ago ... so what happened to the 'Peace Dividend' then ?! How come those who scream 'Taxes Too High' & 'Deficit Too Big' are always so utterly silent on the matter of The Humungous (Known) Military Budget !

WTF are you talking about ?! Wake up from your fantasy !! I've cut you slack above but don't push it !!!

You really seem to be a rancid Democrap Numpty Clone but this site, forum and 'OWS' in genereal are not the right place to ply your preprogrammed, institutionalised BS and pissy little co-option attempts !!

Are you in denial of The Corporate Capture of both DemoCrap & RepubloCon ?! D'you deny that both are paid for by the same Corporate Interests & that both subscribe to all the precepts of American Empire ?!

Go Get A Clue & realise that this site & OWS are NOT the place to ply DemoCrap fantasies. Get your head out of your schizoid-binary or outta your (..x..) - which ever comes easiest !!!

What??? I couldn't hear you ~ some tweeker was having a schizoid-binary nervous breakdown: Why do 1% Kings spend sooooo much Citizens United secret money to elect RepubliCons instead of Dems?? Hah, Boo-Boo?? That's right, Boo-Boo, because Banksters like there own guys, Cons, wearing the Sheriff's badge!!

Consider : The fact that "1% Kings spend soooo much (on) Citizens United" is to do with their deep desire for Total Corporatocracy, Plutocracy and Oligarchy ! That is the deep desire of the Parasistic, Psychopathic, Randian, Supremacist Elitist 0.01% !! Thus, when you say that "Banksters like their own guys" - that has insight & I agree but get this: Your Hallowed Democrat Overlords are Exactly That Too !

IF you had sung the praises of Denis Kucinich for example (cos no one else comes to mind easily!) you may have had some kind of meat on the bones of your argument. Ahhh, a Dennis Kucinich / Bernie Sanders ticket with Ralph Nader & Cynthia McKinney on the undercard - I could smile readily at that pro-American 99% ticket. Hard work after November and for 5-10 years could just realise such a vision !!

Yes, register & vote - as it is the last vestiges of action that most of The 99% can engage with for now but beware 'Voter Suppression'; 'Stolen Elections'; Disenfranchisement & RepupliCon Gerrymandering !!!

Manually Counted Paper Ballots are The Gold Standard and an absolutely essential and minimum safeguard in demoCRAZY deMOCKERYcy U$A - where the toss between two sides of the the same crooked coin is somehow deemed to be a "democracy". Electronic voting systems present a FAR greater threat to election integrity than the relatively very few (compared to the entire voting public) who misrepresent themselves at the polls.

Listen up matey, with this my last word to you on this matter : Voting Democrat is like wiping your own ass - Not a subject for polite conversation in pleasant company ... but WTF is the option for the 'morally hygenic' and human hearted ?! However, it's Not a panacea - it is just the marginally least worst option !!

Elitist Kings are cheapskates, they don't spend a cent unless they have a return guaranteed. They wouldn't spend all this money if it didn't fucking matter. Don't let all the dogma blind you! Learn to fight politics!

Bush Jr's recommendation: take the tax deductions - tax compensation packages, tax their medical and eliminate the home mortgage deduction. Well, Obama is now taxing employer provided medical insurance - it's the same shit, different day, Yes We Can, and they do. Change is a chi-ching kinda thing and I want it and I want it NOW.

Well unfortunately it's all the Dems are about, too. They've mismanaged and as per the usual are conducting a venomous attack on employees here and now, thanks to Obama, we'll also be paying Fed taxes on compensation packages. This thing about the 250 cutoff was just one big lie - the working and middle classes are once again carrying the burden of increased Fed spending and we're doing it in areas of the country that are BLUE; no honor amongst thieves, go figure.

and their earnings were derived from? having a small business? providing a service ( cobbler, cooper etc.) ? if they ( according to you ) had no money why would the kings men seek them out to take money( taxes) they didnt have? you really didnt think this out very well.

I'm waiting to see the debates between Ryan and our present VP. It's going to be very interesting and you know what - that will be the deciding factor in who becomes president.

You can be sure after the first debate should they have one, it's going to be over as to who our next president will be.

Ever wonder why we havn't heard much out of Biden - think it may because he is becoming feable and can't focus.

Ever wonder why he is not speaking at the Democratic National Convention - it's because he will embarass the present dork in office - not that he needs to be embarassed anymore then he has already been.